Political Crossfire Forums

[Creamxec]

soldierofchrist wrote: callous wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: callous wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: To Soldier of Christ:

I'll repeat the question:

Why force them to marry on your terms?

(beginning to think I must be on somenoe's ignore list since I'm not getting any responses)
Sorry. :lol: It's just a lot of the time I just look at the first few response, and the last few. Why? Because those at the standards, they have equal rights. You have the same rights I do. You can marry an of age, female, whom you're not related to, just like I can. If they don't like, they don't need to be married. Someone on here said "marriage isn't that big of deal" so be it.

the status quo is not a defendable reason.

Please attempt a response that includes treating naturally born gay people fairly.
They are treated fairly. They have the same rights I do. Just because you don't like my answer doesn't invaildate it.

So marrying someone is a frivolous gift granted by the government?

Interesting perspective.
No, to me, it's a God-ordained institution that was created for 1 man, and 1 woman. But not everyone shares those same religious beliefs.

most gay people are naturally gay and naturally wana get married. they were also made by God so why would God not want gay people to marry if he created them?

[F'losrix]

Creamxec wrote: fine then...we'll just have to make up a new word for gays being "Married"
'Separate but equal' institutions? Seems like we tried that before and the courts pretty much decided that separate institutions are almost never equal.

What's more, gay couples and straight couples aren't equal. But those relationships are equivalents - enough so for the term 'marriage' to cover either arrangement without completely changing the definition. All that's needed is to lift the gender restriction. Without it, marriage still remains what it is to most people: a formalizing of the contractual arrangement between competent and consenting adults to form a familial unit.

[Ozzone]

Onevote wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: Onevote wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: But what about adoption? Should they be able to adopt kids? Is that really in the children's best interest? Kids are better suited to live in a stable, one mom, one dad household.
Falsely assumes that gay people never have stable households. Ignores the fact that many heterosexual households are unstable. Ignores the fact there aren't enough heterosexual households willing to adopt, especially for older children, or children with emotional problems.

Quote: Also, I know it's a cliche arguement, but where is the line drawn? After gay marriage is legalized, how soon before polygamy is legalized? Or man-boy marriage? Hell, we even have people fighting for bestiality
The line is drawn at consensual relationships between competent adults.

But of course, opponents of gay marriage always insist that there's nothing to keep us from stepping over that line - not because they necessarily believe there's any truth to the argument, but merely because it makes a good scare tactic.
As long as the ACLU remains a powerful legal force, every boundry as we know it, will be pushed. Anyways, gay marriage is inherently unstable. We will soon have polygamy, and bestiality. If that's the society you want I fear we may soon get it. Homosexuals do have marriage rights, they have equal rights, they have the same right to marry any member of the opposite sex whom they are not related too, just like everyone else. I often wonder why it is we feel compelled to try to force our moral standards on others. What is normal is a relative argument. I grew up in a family unit that could only be described as an absolute disaster. While my gay aunt has been a happy relationship for more than 25 years all of her 7 brothers and sisters have been married and divorced. Stability comes from sound judgment and decision making. The old saying,
'you get out of it what you put into it" is what makes the difference in the results of everything from how our children turn out to the destiny of our relationships with others.
You're doing the same thing. You feel gay marriage would constitute a moral society, and you want to force that upon me the majority of people in this country who oppose it. You can't possibly think two people, " not including yourself " should require your approval to marry. do you? Since you seem to be fundamentally Christian , I'll put it this way. Marriage is between two consenting souls and God! Right or wrong? So, no
I don't think gay marriage will constitute a moral society. I simply think it's neither my nor your place to approve or not.

If all that marriage did was constitute a binding between two people irrespective of any link to anything else in society, I wouldn't give a crap if they wanted to marry.

But because marriage is a large part of society, including insurance issues and tax issues and legal issues, and the impact that will have overall is not just an issue of what someone does in the bedroom.

[floridaguy]

If all that marriage did was constitute a binding between two people irrespective of any link to anything else in society, I wouldn't give a crap if they wanted to marry.

But because marriage is a large part of society, including insurance issues and tax issues and legal issues, and the impact that will have overall is not just an issue of what someone does in the bedroom.[/quote]So you dont support fairness and equality in taxes or insurance for everyone? Or are you saying you would if it wouldnt cost you any money?

[F'losrix]

soldierofchrist wrote: They are equal though. They have the same protections, and rights under the law.
We don't. The law allows you to marry someone appropriate to your sexual orientation and receive benefits and protections as a result of the government's recognition of that marriage. It does not afford us that same protection.

[F'losrix]

Ozzone wrote: But because marriage is a large part of society, including insurance issues and tax issues and legal issues, and the impact that will have overall is not just an issue of what someone does in the bedroom.
So you should be allowed to suppress my rights to save yourself a couple of bucks? While I and my partner have to shell out more in taxes than a heterosexual couple, in order to subsidize their marriage benefits?

Where's the fairness in that?

[F'losrix]

soldierofchrist wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: They are equal though. They have the same protections, and rights under the law.
We don't. The law allows you to marry someone appropriate to your sexual orientation and receive benefits and protections as a result of the government's recognition of that marriage. It does not afford us that same protection.
But what about the brother and sister that feel that attraction? Should they be allowed to marry? What about the man and his 17 women,should they be allowed to shack up? I mean why shouldn't the law afford those rights to them?
Can you come up with a reason for the government to have a legitimate interest in preventing either of these things? If not, the law should afford them those rights. The only thing standing in the way otherwise our societal taboos, which are generally not enough of an interest to justify government restriction.

Moreover, you're just offering this as a distraction to keep from having to address my original assertion.

[StrangerWitCandy]

wscreate wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: wscreate wrote: Should anyone make an issue of their sexuality?
When someone else uses it as the means to restrict our right? We're not making an issue of our sexuality - it's bringing attention to the unfair treatment we receive because of the difference in our sexuality. Why people can't get that is something I don't understand.

And why people can't get that making an issue of one's sexuality seems a bit selfish (for lack of a better word), is beyond me. There are many more important issues than who one chooses to sleep with. I don't support or condemn those that are gay or those that are straight. To me, it is not an issue. I could care less. One's sexuality is so low on the totem poll of human behaviors, I just don't see why it deserves some special attention in our society. My $0.02.

what about the fact that other people make our sexuality an issue? can't you see the massive problem that many people have with people being gay? thats not my fault as a gay man. thats someone else making an issue out of my sexuality and its not right.

[StrangerWitCandy]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Ozzone wrote: But because marriage is a large part of society, including insurance issues and tax issues and legal issues, and the impact that will have overall is not just an issue of what someone does in the bedroom.
So you should be allowed to suppress my rights to save yourself a couple of bucks? While I and my partner have to shell out more in taxes than a heterosexual couple, in order to subsidize their marriage benefits?

Where's the fairness in that?

great point. gays still pay taxes. we're still paying for OTHER people's benefits, yet have no access to those of our own. how is that at all fair?

[Creamxec]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Creamxec wrote: fine then...we'll just have to make up a new word for gays being "Married"
'Separate but equal' institutions? Seems like we tried that before and the courts pretty much decided that separate institutions are almost never equal.

What's more, gay couples and straight couples aren't equal. But those relationships are equivalents - enough so for the term 'marriage' to cover either arrangement without completely changing the definition. All that's needed is to lift the gender restriction. Without it, marriage still remains what it is to most people: a formalizing of the contractual arrangement between competent and consenting adults to form a familial unit.

when have we tried this before?

[F'losrix]

Creamxec wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Creamxec wrote: fine then...we'll just have to make up a new word for gays being "Married"
'Separate but equal' institutions? Seems like we tried that before and the courts pretty much decided that separate institutions are almost never equal.

What's more, gay couples and straight couples aren't equal. But those relationships are equivalents - enough so for the term 'marriage' to cover either arrangement without completely changing the definition. All that's needed is to lift the gender restriction. Without it, marriage still remains what it is to most people: a formalizing of the contractual arrangement between competent and consenting adults to form a familial unit.

when have we tried this before?
Segregation of the races. I can see where my phrasing was poor and could be misinterpreted as separate but equal institutions specifically relating to marriage. I was speaking more generally.

You should not construe this to mean that I'm comparing sexual orientation with race or meaning to portray the struggle of either group to obtain civil rights to be equivalent to the other's - they're very different things.

[Protostar]

soldierofchrist wrote: callous wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: To Soldier of Christ:

I'll repeat the question:

Why force them to marry on your terms?

(beginning to think I must be on somenoe's ignore list since I'm not getting any responses)
Sorry. :lol: It's just a lot of the time I just look at the first few response, and the last few. Why? Because those at the standards, they have equal rights. You have the same rights I do. You can marry an of age, female, whom you're not related to, just like I can. If they don't like, they don't need to be married. Someone on here said "marriage isn't that big of deal" so be it.
That doesn't answer the question I asked you. Try again:

Why force them to marry on your terms?
Those are the terms that have existed since...well since the begining of time. They don't have to get married. In fact since they can't procreate, I don't see why getting married matters anyways.

Its not your business to decide whether getting married matters. Its theirs.

Amazing how religion eventually becomes authoritarian.
You don't like, take it up with God. His rules, not mine.

What the hell does your god have to do with society as a whole? The fact that the majority of Americans are Christians is irrelevant. They donot have the right to stample the rights of the minority simply because they are the majority. These silly gay marriage bans will be overturned by the courts in due time. No government on any level has the right to deprive two of age, consenting individuals of their right to contract.

[HayeksRevenge]

Aside from the marriage issue which I presume gay people consider a "right", and rights related to marriage, insurance for your partner, etc., what other "rights" are gay people denied in America? I mean, is the city where you live making you sit in the back of the bus? Are the police profiling you? Do you have to go to separate schools than heterosexuals.

Please, educate me on the need for a gay rights movement.

[HayeksRevenge]

Protostar wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: callous wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: soldierofchrist wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: To Soldier of Christ:

I'll repeat the question:

Why force them to marry on your terms?

(beginning to think I must be on somenoe's ignore list since I'm not getting any responses)
Sorry. :lol: It's just a lot of the time I just look at the first few response, and the last few. Why? Because those at the standards, they have equal rights. You have the same rights I do. You can marry an of age, female, whom you're not related to, just like I can. If they don't like, they don't need to be married. Someone on here said "marriage isn't that big of deal" so be it.
That doesn't answer the question I asked you. Try again:

Why force them to marry on your terms?
Those are the terms that have existed since...well since the begining of time. They don't have to get married. In fact since they can't procreate, I don't see why getting married matters anyways.

Its not your business to decide whether getting married matters. Its theirs.

Amazing how religion eventually becomes authoritarian.
You don't like, take it up with God. His rules, not mine.

These silly gay marriage bans will be overturned by the courts in due time.

Only if the case is heard by a liberal judge or a liberal dominated court. The supreme court, after Alito is confirmed, will not be considered liberal dominated. So, your presumption is a bit, well, immature.

[F'losrix]

HayeksRevenge wrote: Aside from the marriage issue which I presume gay people consider a "right", and rights related to marriage, insurance for your partner, etc., what other "rights" are gay people denied in America? I mean, is the city where you live making you sit in the back of the bus? Are the police profiling you? Do you have to go to separate schools than heterosexuals.

Please, educate me on the need for a gay rights movement.
This is precisely why I think comparisons to race are a poor way to examine the issue. Just because we don't experience the same kinds of discrimination, that doesn't mean we face no discrimination.

As for police profiling - they very well might be.

Re: separate schools - some gay people do find themselves forced to drop out of the public school system and pursue alternative education for their own physical safety, not to mention the effect the constant harrassment has on one's mental health.

A majority of Americans still live in areas where it is perfectly legal to fire someone from their job on the mere suspicion of them being homosexual. They can likewise be denied housing and public accommodation on the same grounds. Some states prevent us from becoming foster parents or adopting. The criminal justice system in some places still treats us as second class citizens when we have the misfortune to be the victims of violent crime, with the perpetrators receiving unusually light sentences - if an effort is made to fully prosecute them at all. Our sexuality is used against us in child custody proceedings following divorce. There are constant efforts calling for censorship of homosexuality - most of which fail, thankfully. We are denied visitation of our loved ones in the hospital in situations where it is restricted to 'family' only. Our efforts to protect our relationships through legal means are not respected, thanks to the law treating us as 'legal strangers' and placing the greed of meddling relatives who despised us when alive above our final wishes when we die. My life partner can't qualify for benefits as my survivor when they're tied to the word 'marriage' and recognition of ours is denied by the government. The guy working next to me can cover his children on his health insurance, but if I'm financially supporting my partners kids, they're S.O.L in that department. I have to pay higher taxes than the married couple next door because my partner and I can't file as married - even if we are.

That's the short list. There are over a thousand benefits and protections at the federal level that are tied to marital status.

[Creamxec]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Creamxec wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Creamxec wrote: fine then...we'll just have to make up a new word for gays being "Married"
'Separate but equal' institutions? Seems like we tried that before and the courts pretty much decided that separate institutions are almost never equal.

What's more, gay couples and straight couples aren't equal. But those relationships are equivalents - enough so for the term 'marriage' to cover either arrangement without completely changing the definition. All that's needed is to lift the gender restriction. Without it, marriage still remains what it is to most people: a formalizing of the contractual arrangement between competent and consenting adults to form a familial unit.

when have we tried this before?
Segregation of the races. I can see where my phrasing was poor and could be misinterpreted as separate but equal institutions specifically relating to marriage. I was speaking more generally.

You should not construe this to mean that I'm comparing sexual orientation with race or meaning to portray the struggle of either group to obtain civil rights to be equivalent to the other's - they're very different things.

well eventually black people got their civil rights...so its a step towards the right direction.....ur the one that brought up the seperate but equal so who is really comparing right now?

[F'losrix]

Creamxec wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Creamxec wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Creamxec wrote: fine then...we'll just have to make up a new word for gays being "Married"
'Separate but equal' institutions? Seems like we tried that before and the courts pretty much decided that separate institutions are almost never equal.

What's more, gay couples and straight couples aren't equal. But those relationships are equivalents - enough so for the term 'marriage' to cover either arrangement without completely changing the definition. All that's needed is to lift the gender restriction. Without it, marriage still remains what it is to most people: a formalizing of the contractual arrangement between competent and consenting adults to form a familial unit.

when have we tried this before?
Segregation of the races. I can see where my phrasing was poor and could be misinterpreted as separate but equal institutions specifically relating to marriage. I was speaking more generally.

You should not construe this to mean that I'm comparing sexual orientation with race or meaning to portray the struggle of either group to obtain civil rights to be equivalent to the other's - they're very different things.

well eventually black people got their civil rights...so its a step towards the right direction.....ur the one that brought up the seperate but equal so who is really comparing right now?
It's a valid comparison, because what I'm comparing is the methods used by those who fought against race equality with those who use the same basic arguments to fight against equality for gay people. It's not comparing race with homosexuality or their struggle with ours - it's merely pointing out that the concept of 'separate but equal' never really turns out to be - it was wrong when it was applied to race and it is just as wrong to apply it to the situation of gay marriage.

[Prole]

Creamxec wrote:
well eventually black people got their civil rights...so its a step towards the right direction.....
It was. And similar to equality regardless of race, equality regardless of sexual orientation would be another great step.

[Creamxec]

Skeptical Mystic wrote: Creamxec wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Creamxec wrote: Skeptical Mystic wrote: Creamxec wrote: fine then...we'll just have to make up a new word for gays being "Married"
'Separate but equal' institutions? Seems like we tried that before and the courts pretty much decided that separate institutions are almost never equal.

What's more, gay couples and straight couples aren't equal. But those relationships are equivalents - enough so for the term 'marriage' to cover either arrangement without completely changing the definition. All that's needed is to lift the gender restriction. Without it, marriage still remains what it is to most people: a formalizing of the contractual arrangement between competent and consenting adults to form a familial unit.

when have we tried this before?
Segregation of the races. I can see where my phrasing was poor and could be misinterpreted as separate but equal institutions specifically relating to marriage. I was speaking more generally.

You should not construe this to mean that I'm comparing sexual orientation with race or meaning to portray the struggle of either group to obtain civil rights to be equivalent to the other's - they're very different things.

well eventually black people got their civil rights...so its a step towards the right direction.....ur the one that brought up the seperate but equal so who is really comparing right now?
It's a valid comparison, because what I'm comparing is the methods used by those who fought against race equality with those who use the same basic arguments to fight against equality for gay people. It's not comparing race with homosexuality or their struggle with ours - it's merely pointing out that the concept of 'separate but equal' never really turns out to be - it was wrong when it was applied to race and it is just as wrong to apply it to the situation of gay marriage.

thank u prole for understanding me..skeptical...u told me not to compare them yet u are saying its a valid comparison?

[F'losrix]

Creamxec wrote: skeptical...u told me not to compare them yet u are saying its a valid comparison?
I didn't say you couldn't compare them. I probably said I considered such a comparison unwise.

What I did say was not to misconstrue my comparison as being one of race vs. homosexuality or the struggle for racial equality vs. the fight for gay rights.

What I did say was that it is valid to compare the methods used against one group with those used against the other. The reason being that the enemies of equality and fair treatment for either group use many of the same tactics and susbscribe to many of the same ideologies.

Now, if you still can't see the difference, I'm afraid I can't do much else to help you.